If the idea of Kevin Spacey talking directly into a camera creeps you out, I'd say skip it.

That was my one complaint about it but no one else has agreed with me so far. I found it very off-putting for him to have these aside conversation all the time and just a lazy way to advance plot points from a writing stand point. It wasn't so bad I disliked the show because of it or anything.

If the idea of Kevin Spacey talking directly into a camera creeps you out, I'd say skip it.

That was my one complaint about it but no one else has agreed with me so far. I found it very off-putting for him to have these aside conversation all the time and just a lazy way to advance plot points from a writing stand point. It wasn't so bad I disliked the show because of it or anything.

If the idea of Kevin Spacey talking directly into a camera creeps you out, I'd say skip it.

That was my one complaint about it but no one else has agreed with me so far. I found it very off-putting for him to have these aside conversation all the time and just a lazy way to advance plot points from a writing stand point. It wasn't so bad I disliked the show because of it or anything.

....I do watch Homeland....one question about Homeland, if I may...why did they focus so much on the vice president in the first two seasons, as if there wasn't even such a position as "president"?

I think the idea was he was a war-hawk a la Cheney who was highly influential in foreign policy. I also think the elevation of terrorist attempt to kill the President instead of VP increases the unbelievability of the scenario a bit. I also think it was supposed to highlight how personal the issue was for Abu Nazir.

One of the (many, many, many) plotholes that bothered me was Walden, or whatever the VPs name was, was clearly his party's nominee for President and he was to the point in the process where he was about to name a running mate. This traditionally happens about a week or two before the conventions in mid-summer. So Walden died around June of an election year, lets say, at the end of Season 2. Season three clearly jumps 2-3 months (I forget the exact number but they reference how many days its been since the Langley bombing) which would start season three around late-September/October of an election year. We're supposed to believe a lame duck president pushed through a major nominee in the waining days of his Presidency with no stalling from the other party. And then when Saul blackmails the guy, he pushes back his confirmation, what was it, like 6 weeks, definitely pushing the appointment past the election date, which is NEVER mentioned again. Its like the election just got CANCELLED when Walden died. The internal timetable of this show makes no sense.

And yes, I am fully aware there are 100 even more insanely impossible things that have happened in Homeland, this one has always just bothered me for some reason. Perhaps because I always wondered what would happen if a party's nominee for President died before the election. Is there even a protocol to name an alternate? I know in Senate elections, there isn't in most states.

I always wondered what would happen if a party's nominee for President died before the election. Is there even a protocol to name an alternate? I know in Senate elections, there isn't in most states.

When voters cast their votes in November, they are not actually casting votes for a specific person. Instead, they are casting votes for electors, persons chosen by the candidates' parties to attend a gathering of all electors in each state capital, where they cast the votes that officially elect a president.

If a presidential candidate dies after the party convention and before the election, particularly before ballots are printed, the party can select a new person to represent the party on the ticket. The choice will depend on the party's own rules. As the election nears, the situation gets more sticky, because elections take time to plan. Practically speaking, ballots must be printed, and if there is not enough time to do that, the election can still go on, though with the name of a now-dead candidate on the ballot - state law should dictate how such ballots would be handled. Vermont law (17 VSC 2475), for example, states that new ballots will be printed - but if the death occurs near enough to Election Day, it may not be possible to print new ballots.

While near-election death might be a problem for a Senator or a judge, where the voters are electing a specific person, in the case of the presidential election, the buffer of the electoral college would allow the election to continue.

I'll never watch any of these. It's all like, "The Arcade Fire" of cable programs but please note which ones have the most gratuitous nudity. It would be appreciated. With "Californication" ending and "Spartacus" done, I just don't know what to do with myself.